Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

refactor: remove redundant variable declarations in for loops #447

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

refactor: remove redundant variable declarations in for loops #447

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@wyrapeseed
Copy link

@wyrapeseed wyrapeseed commented Oct 22, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description

The new version of Go has been optimized, and variables do not need to be reassigned.

For more info: https://tip.golang.org/wiki/LoopvarExperiment#does-this-mean-i-dont-have-to-write-x--x-in-my-loops-anymore

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

@wyrapeseed wyrapeseed requested a review from a team as a code owner October 22, 2025 06:43
@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 22, 2025 •
edited
Loading

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request removes the tc := tc loop variable capture pattern from for-range loops across eleven test files in multiple modules. The change eliminates the explicit per-iteration shadowing of the test case variable, altering closure capture semantics in test subtests.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Removed loop variable capture across test files
x/bank/keeper/msg_server_test.go, x/distribution/keeper/custom_msg_server_test.go, x/distribution/keeper/grpc_query_test.go, x/distribution/keeper/msg_server_test.go, x/gov/types/genesis_test.go, x/ibc/nft-transfer/types/genesis_test.go, x/intertx/keeper/msg_server_test.go, x/move/types/authz_test.go, x/mstaking/client/cli/tx_test.go, x/mstaking/keeper/msg_server_test.go, x/reward/types/tx_test.go		 Removed tc := tc rebind statements within test loops, affecting how test case variables are captured by t.Run() and suite.Run() closures. No changes to test logic or assertions.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Rationale: While changes span eleven files across multiple modules, the modifications are highly homogeneous—the same pattern (tc := tc removal) is applied consistently throughout. The repetitive nature and mechanical scope reduce cognitive overhead, despite the broad file coverage. Primary focus should be verifying whether the removal of explicit variable capture introduces unintended concurrent access issues in parallelized test environments.

Poem

🐰 Loop variables freed from their capture,
No more shadows dancing in the loop,
Test closures leap, now closer to the rapture,
Though some may race—let's hope they stay in troop!

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title Check ✅ Passed The PR title "refactor: remove redundant variable declarations in for loops" is directly related to the main changes in the changeset. The raw_summary shows that across multiple test files (bank, distribution, gov, ibc, intertx, move, mstaking, reward), the changes consistently remove the tc := tc loop variable rebinding pattern. The title accurately and concisely describes this primary modification without vague terminology or unnecessary details. It clearly conveys what was changed from the developer's perspective.
Description Check ✅ Passed The PR description is related to the changeset as it explains the rationale for removing the redundant variable declarations based on Go's recent loop variable optimizations. The description cites Go's LoopvarExperiment documentation, which directly explains the context for why explicit tc := tc rebindings are no longer necessary in modern Go versions. While the description could provide more specific details about which files are affected or what the tc := tc pattern does, the check is lenient and only requires that the description not be completely off-topic, which it clearly is not.
✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting

Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d43f6b5 and 3a468c7.

📒 Files selected for processing (11)
  • x/bank/keeper/msg_server_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/distribution/keeper/custom_msg_server_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/distribution/keeper/grpc_query_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/distribution/keeper/msg_server_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/gov/types/genesis_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/ibc/nft-transfer/types/genesis_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/intertx/keeper/msg_server_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/move/types/authz_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/mstaking/client/cli/tx_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/mstaking/keeper/msg_server_test.go (0 hunks)
  • x/reward/types/tx_test.go (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (11)
  • x/distribution/keeper/custom_msg_server_test.go
  • x/ibc/nft-transfer/types/genesis_test.go
  • x/intertx/keeper/msg_server_test.go
  • x/reward/types/tx_test.go
  • x/mstaking/keeper/msg_server_test.go
  • x/mstaking/client/cli/tx_test.go
  • x/distribution/keeper/msg_server_test.go
  • x/gov/types/genesis_test.go
  • x/move/types/authz_test.go
  • x/bank/keeper/msg_server_test.go
  • x/distribution/keeper/grpc_query_test.go

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@wyrapeseed
Copy link
Author

@beer-1 @sh-cha Hi, Could you please review this PR at your convenience? Thank you very much.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@wyrapeseed